get-file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it discloses the read-only nature implicitly via 'Get' and enumerates what is returned (dimensions, size, media type, original/preferred URLs), which is genuinely useful. It omits permissions/auth requirements and any behavior for missing or non-file titles.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return contents. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the return fields, and the input schema fully documents the two parameters. It lacks usage/alternative guidance and auth notes, but for a simple read tool this is close to complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both 'wiki' and 'title' (including the 'File:' prefix tolerance), so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get metadata and download URLs for an uploaded file') plus the resource types handled (image, PDF, etc), which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from retrieval siblings like get-page or get-revision, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the file must already be uploaded via upload-file/upload-file-from-url). Nothing routes the agent among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.